I havent ate any fastfood in over 4 years now, not a bite. But this anitcorporate thing... wont do. any other suggestions?

btw, Less Than Zero is ok so far, its getting kind of redundant and bland with the goto the party, do some coke, go out to eat... shit.

One person's "anticorporate" is another's call for some corporate responsibility. If even half the facts in the book are true- and it is QUITE well-researched- then the industry is badly in need of reform and regulation.

You're right that this anticorporate thing won't do, though... if you're talking about the way corporations tend to falsely whine "anticorporate" any time someone expects or even dares HOPE that they'll take responsibility for their actions and the way they treat their consumers and workers.

Why dont you read a book on the other end of the spectrum and at least try to balance your sources?

Fast Food Nation is an objective, subtle, extremely well-documented (both by personal contact and statistic) survey of its subject. If you can find me a similarly reasonable book contradicting anything (or everything) in it, I'd be happy to see if my local library has it.

Any person I know who has ever worked minimum wage in fast-food support the claims in the book, though. I really do have the feeling that the only people you'll find who try to claim anything in it is false or unreasonable are the people who stand to gain money or keep the (comfortable for them) status quo by doing so.

Ive decided to place Fast Food Nation at the end of my long list of books, after reading I challenge you to a debate.

I havent ate any fastfood in over 4 years now, not a bite. But this anitcorporate thing... wont do. any other suggestions?

btw, Less Than Zero is ok so far, its getting kind of redundant and bland with the goto the party, do some coke, go out to eat... shit.

One person's "anticorporate" is another's call for some corporate responsibility. If even half the facts in the book are true- and it is QUITE well-researched- then the industry is badly in need of reform and regulation.

You're right that this anticorporate thing won't do, though... if you're talking about the way corporations tend to falsely whine "anticorporate" any time someone expects or even dares HOPE that they'll take responsibility for their actions and the way they treat their consumers and workers.

Why dont you read a book on the other end of the spectrum and at least try to balance your sources?

Fast Food Nation is an objective, subtle, extremely well-documented (both by personal contact and statistic) survey of its subject. If you can find me a similarly reasonable book contradicting anything (or everything) in it, I'd be happy to see if my local library has it.

Any person I know who has ever worked minimum wage in fast-food support the claims in the book, though. I really do have the feeling that the only people you'll find who try to claim anything in it is false or unreasonable are the people who stand to gain money or keep the (comfortable for them) status quo by doing so.

Ive decided to place Fast Food Nation at the end of my long list of books, after reading I challenge you to a debate.

I accept. Considering that I actually look like this, though-

-I think you might want to be VERY... CAREFUL what you say to me!

What, are you surprised? Can't a man be bookish AND a lumbering, musclebound behemoth! Stop diminishing me!

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

I've read parts of "the brothers karamazov" (until it was stolen, as was my 'notes from underground') and i've read "the death of ivan ilych". my question, on the russian novelists, is it really worth it to make it through "war and peace" or "anna karenina" or "brother's karamazov" or "crime and punishment"? I've wanted to read this titles, and i'm not afraid of long books, i just needed some feedback before delving into them.

crime and punishment was slow at some parts, but for the most was a read that stays with you for a long time. I would definitely recommend it.

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

I've read parts of "the brothers karamazov" (until it was stolen, as was my 'notes from underground') and i've read "the death of ivan ilych". my question, on the russian novelists, is it really worth it to make it through "war and peace" or "anna karenina" or "brother's karamazov" or "crime and punishment"? I've wanted to read this titles, and i'm not afraid of long books, i just needed some feedback before delving into them.

I've heard Crime and Punishment rocked but was way too wordy and that War and Peace was nice, but when you're done you say to yourself "wow. that was thin"

Logged

"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

crime and punishment was slow at some parts, but for the most was a read that stays with you for a long time. I would definitely recommend it.

Dostoyevsky is juicier than Tolstoy. With Tolstoy, it's nice to have an edition that gives you the historical context. I'm really not partial to battlefield "scenes" in novels, and I found the boredom of the ones in War and Peace to be exemplary. Anna Karenina is a much swifter read. Both have much to recommend them, but... I prefer Dostoyevsky, Gogol, and ESPECIALLY Turgenev to Tolstoy. Turgenev is wonderful.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

oh, it's so good, Mac. very quick read, i finished in two or three days. i couldn't put it down.

Logged

The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil’s rain we’ll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, ’cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, ’cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put ’em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put ’em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.